Capitalism has been blamed, by Piketty (2014) and many other economists, for increasing “wealth inequality” observed today. For example, Piketty (2014, p.23) suggested that the top decile of earners in the United States increased their share of income from 35 percent in 1980 to 50 percent recently, is the result of capitalism. However, without clearly defining what is meant by capitalism, the causal attribution has little logical foundation. Capitalism needs to be defined.

Pension systems around the world are often victims of collusive predation of governments and big banks. Australian superannuation which ranks among the top pension systems, is doing its best to emulate worse ones by frequent reforms. In many countries, private savings have been borrowed and spent by governments in counter-productive Keynesian stimulus or siphoned off to the pockets of the elite in neoclassical financialization and globalization, justified by unscientific economic pluralism.

To be useful, constructive criticism should be given to the person expressing the erroneous ideas. However, the blog editor of Real-World Economic Review (RWER), who is a leader and protagonist in the movement for economic pluralism, has refused to publish my criticism of that movement. Criticism of the movement is important because the movement asserts that more resources should be allocated to promote economic pluralism; supposedly the lack of economic pluralism explains “Why a global disaster that could easily have been prevented took place” (Fullbrook, 2017).

It has been three years since this blog was launched with an inaugural post in August 2013. What has been achieved by way of progress in building a scientific economic paradigm? Considering the scope and ambition of the project – to start from scratch, to take nothing for granted and to build from a scientific basis – enormous progress has been made. Here is a summary.

The great inventive minds of modern economics (GIMME) have been busy talking about helicopter money as an option they could try in future as another unconventional monetary policy (UMP) to avoid “deflation” or “lowflation” (Lagarde, 2013). Actually, helicopter money is a very old idea and already has been in operation for several years. But nobody, not even some prominent critics of central banks, seems to have recognized it yet. What is helicopter money? What is it for? Has it worked? Will it work?